What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.604 Comments
- Albionshores, on 01/11/2008, -48/+155A universal health care system should be a fundamental right for a developed nation.
And in most it is. - Hellman109, on 01/11/2008, -15/+117Here in Australia if you need medical treatment you get it, and for basically free (you pay what the government doesnt on prescribed drugs, thats about it, including getting surgery). You can get Private cover which means you cna goto private hospitals, get your own room, etc. but there all 'nice to have' not 'need to have'.
You can goto a doctor for free here (bulk billing), prescribed drugs are heavily subsidised (most cost under $20 for a packet, AND they are allowed to sell 'cheap brands' of drugs, unlike the US). You can get Xrays and scans and such for free if a doctor gives you a reference (goto free doctor, get free scan, return to free doctor for diagnosis, goto hospital for free surgery if needed).
Your screwed over, BADLY, in the US. Ignore what politicians ***** to you, your medical system sucks. Do you know why they like it? its simple, they get it for free anyhow, and medical companies bribe (sorry, 'lobby') them with millions of dollars a year. Politicians win, you lose, welcome to the 'land of the free' - Shigglyboo, on 01/11/2008, -12/+69no way, Sean Hannity told me we have the best in the world! I've had sinus problems for years, spent lots of money and time with doctors. This is proof that our system is the best.
- pintomp3, on 01/11/2008, -9/+64i'm proud to be in american, where at least i know i'm free *cough* *wheez* *cough*
- inactive, on 01/11/2008, -18/+62Watch Sicko, Get angry.
- duggtodeath, on 01/11/2008, -14/+54Neocon: "Dem people can afford medical care, they simply choose not to buy it!"
- SuperMoses, on 01/11/2008, -14/+52"How can you ask any private service to give away their services free?" .. really? Is that what France does? Last time I checked, the government insured their citizens and the private health services got paid.
// You do not have a right to steal services. // .. it's not stealing if you're paying for it with your taxes. Are you stealing the services from the military? the fire fighters, etc? .. but let me guess, taxation is theft right?
// Grow some and stop thinking the government is supposed to bail you out.// - so when someone is insured, they need an emergency operation but their insurance company won't cover it.. I guess your advice to them is to "grow some"???
// I don't think anyone can name a single entity of the government that isn't wasteful spending and more bureaucracy. //
Not all governments are as corrupt as the US government. Governments aren't supposed to run like corporations where their goal is to make profits. Governments are supposed to serve the people, corporations are supposed to make profits. In some countries, the former actually happens, which in those countries their government funded health care system is running more efficiently then the hybrid crap that's going on in the US - Albionshores, on 01/11/2008, -6/+42It is far from perfect - far. But better than the US system - damn straight!
If you are in an accident that demands long term care, need chaemo, need surgery, need x-rays or whatever but are poor or can't get medical insurance then in the US you're screwed. In the UK you're not screwed, you just go to a hospital and having used them - and contrary to private med care propaganda put out they do have lists but people are seen according to their needs. You might have to wait 5 days for an in growing toe nail-but if you need an operation or meds they make sure you get it when you need it.
That said if you don't like the idea of being on a communal ward you can still choose to go private in the UK. It's still a lot cheaper than in the US and there's still now waiting involved whatsoever. When the industry is completely privatised insurance companies can push up the costs because there is no alternative. Insurance companies and private health care centers in the UK don't have that luxury.
The UKs NHS is not perfect but then again they don't have kids selling crack on street corners to pay for their kid sister's eye operation. - pimpofpixels, on 01/11/2008, -8/+43Our health care system is quite flawed.
Canada's taxpayers pay $3500 per person annually in health care for a system which is frequently described as on of the world's best.
In the United states we pay $2500 per person through taxes and an additional $4000 dollars out of pocket. That's $6500 per person in the United States for a system that leaves 20% of people without any care at all, and kills around 100k annually from hospital caused deaths.
We're just getting robbed by insurance companies. It's amazing how quickly democracy turns into sudo-facisism when money controls media and media controls elections.
That said, this article is very muddled and not a terribly good read. - inactive, on 01/11/2008, -6/+35Receiving treatment in a hospital should be a fundamental right to every citizen, right alongside freedom of speech, press, and assembly. I don't need some millionaire lecturing me about abstract monetary policy, and the theoretical implications of it. Most of these people are so deep in the pockets of the insurance lobby anyway, that sunlight has become nothing but a fond memory.
Plus, if I'm going to be shelling out my money, I'd rather give it to somebody who I can hold accountable -- such as an elected official. - AzBats, on 01/11/2008, -5/+34Don't you think that the US could do a lot better though? Isn't it patriotic, at least, to think that the US can do single provider healthcare better than the other countries?
- udahlen, on 01/11/2008, -6/+34The strange thing about the US health care system is that a clear majority of the people seem to want universal health care (even government operated universal health care in some polls), but a clear majority of the politicians do not. Either you are electing the wrong politicians or you think the issue is not that important compared to other issues.
In Europe it is a non-issue. No-one would ever dream of suggesting non-universal health care. We have problems, sure, but not any worse than the US (in fact, much better than the US in most studies).
The US should learn from the mistakes made in Europe and introduce an American version of universal health care. I've no doubt you could make it the best universal health care system in the world. - TheRealToma, on 01/11/2008, -0/+27I agree. We have it awesome here in AU. Im on anti-leukemia medication that would cost $6000 per month if it wasnt under the PDS. I end up paying $30 a month. Every day I thank medicare and our PDS. Fantastic stuff.
- da_bradler, on 01/11/2008, -11/+37it's such a stupid argument people think that private healthcare agencies are somehow more cost effective, the only reason there more cost effective is because they pay there workers minimum wage. while the government pays there workers decently.
now what's healthier for a country? a private company that creates minimum wage jobs and then feeds all the profits to the owners? or a government who will pay everybody a good wage and level it out by not having to make a profit?
No matter what your getting a better deal with government controlled healthcare, all that money goes towards strengthening the middle class and there is nobody at the top making millions of dollars.
Now you'd say "medical research won't advance as fast without companies making money" but that's a plain and simply falsity, virtually all research into drugs that prevent life threatening illnesses is paid for in large part by government grants, private industry is only good at producing things like viagra. - banmaster, on 01/11/2008, -1/+24Early last year I got a severe infection. Since I live in Australia I was immediately rushed the 150Km (100 miles, I live in the country) via ambulance to the closest hospital that could cater to my condition, where I then spent 3 and a half weeks (all but the first 4 days in my own room) and had several operations including 2 days in ICU.
All of it was completely free, including the large cocktail of drugs I required, and I only had to pay $4.80 for the additional drugs needed after I was discharged thanks to our country's drug subsidy scheme
For that kind of care (not to mention my dignity and the respect I was shown by all involved) I'm more than happy that a portion of my taxes go towards providing a very good quality, free, universal health care system.
That kind of treatment in the US would have been well over $100,000 for the transport, operations, hospital stay and drugs, possibly a lot more...
I seriously doubt that any American would have ANY issues with universal health care if they were in the same situation.
You guys are being royally screwed, you know it, but the neocons you guys keep on electing see health care as a profit making industry, instead of a service that is supposed to get sick people better, and will do ANYTHING to protect profits, including the extreme FUD about how a universal system will turn every american into a red commie!
Once you start seeing everybody as a number, you can only resist the temptation to stick a '$' sign in front of them for so long. - NeoRicen, on 01/11/2008, -4/+25It's not just 'neo' cons. It's all conservatives.
- brufleth, on 01/11/2008, -1/+20Which country spends more GDP and more per capita on health care? Anyone? The USA.
You're already paying top f'ing dollar and yet we keep ranking poorly when anyone bothers to rank health systems.
I have what would be considered excellent health cover through my company. The company CEO bitches about rising health care costs all the time though. They're rising at 2-3 times inflation. Even with that "excellent" coverage I constantly had problems getting prescriptions filled. If I ever had a long term illness I'd lose my job and my coverage. What then? Would your uninformed comments pay my health care costs?
The US system doesn't make sense. The monetary motivation doesn't exist for health insurance companies to actually keep you healthy or to continue paying out once you start costing them money. - inactive, on 01/11/2008, -13/+32And by free you mean you pay a percentage of your taxes for it, so by free you really mean "a substantial percentage of my income". The problem with America isn't that we don't have free health care but that we pay the same ***** amount of taxes but in return we get some ***** war in Iraq. Either cut taxes or give me health care.
- deeringc, on 01/11/2008, -7/+26If Universal Health (i.e. Public) Care is such a bad idea, can anyone give me a good reason why the Firefighters, Police, the Military, Public Libraries etc.. should be private? I don't see the difference. If my house catches fire, I don't want to worry about if I am "covered" by a firefighting plan. If I get cancer, I don't want to be left to die without treatment because I cant pay. Americans, you are the victims of your own ideology, and more importantly, the power your Lobbyist-controlled politicians have over that ideology.
- JayKeaton, on 01/11/2008, -1/+19I think the American system is proof that these private medical systems can't be trusted to take care of you. They only care about making profits, the government only cares about helping everyone. Greed or efficiency? Hmmm, tough choice...
- brufleth, on 01/11/2008, -1/+19As a working member of the middle class it annoys me that people like you can't do simple math. WE PAY TOO MUCH FOR HEALTH CARE! Why does that keep bouncing off your thick skull? We pay too much. We pay too much. We pay more per capita and more GDP than any other country on earth. Why shouldn't we have the best damn health care system in the world?
It doesn't matter if it is coming out of your taxes or it is coming out of your overall pay as a company provided benefit. You are paying too much for health care in the US and the current system isn't going to change that. Deregulating isn't going to make that better.
Corporations make money for their employees and their share holders. That's their purpose. Tell me how an insurance company benefits when a customer gets ill and starts costing the company money. If that customer loses their job they'll get dropped like a frozen corpse.
As a conservative you should be able to see that the costs are too high for what we're getting. You're over paying for crap services. - bxblox, on 01/11/2008, -2/+19I'm not gonna argue for or against universal health care, but damn is going to the doctor expensive. This summer i shut the car door on my finger and it closed completely and locked, trapping my hand while i tried to contain the scream long enough to get my keys. I waited about 3 weeks before going to the doctor (hoping it would heal and dodge the bill). The ER doctor whispered to me "do you have good insurance?" before giving me my pain prescription and reffering me to the specialist. The specialist looked at his file and said, "if your insurance asks, it happened at home. you say the word car and they'll deny your coverage." All is well now and my hand no longer smells like dead bodies. Our current healthcare system is influenced by money at every single level and it sucks...
- DangerCollie, on 01/11/2008, -5/+21Hey, Fred Thompson said we have the best health care in the world. And I suppose if you're a Senator or former Senator, we really do have a great health care system. For the rest of us it sucks ass.
- brufleth, on 01/11/2008, -5/+21All those countries with better rated systems pay less per capita and less per GDP for their health care. They pay a lot less.
Health isn't the same as most products that corporations sell. The cost benefit doesn't work out to the advantage of the customer when the company does it. They make money collecting from healthy people. Sick people cost them money and there are many ways they can stop coverage and *surprise* many of those ways involve getting sick! People can get hurt or sick and lose their jobs or have expenses not covered by their carrier which can cause them to lose their health care coverage. Then their whole life is screwed. - brufleth, on 01/11/2008, -2/+18The US still pays more per capita and more GDP for health care than any other country on earth.
- chenkersthecat, on 01/11/2008, -2/+17In Australia, our health care system works as follows:
Sick? > go to hospital or doctor (free) > get drugs to get better (affordable) > go back to work > pay taxes > fund universal health care > repeat. - amr05h, on 01/11/2008, -4/+19Michael Moore ignores a large part of the debate in his film and should not be taken as seriously as he is, however Norway is not Norway because it has 10 Million People. The United States currently spends 15% of our GDP (http://hspm.sph.sc.edu/Courses/Econ/Classes/nhe00/ ... on the health care industry with 40% coming from the U.S. Government (even more if you include the tax subsidies.) where Norway spends 8% (http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php ... and has a universal system. The U.S's GDP is huge compared to Norway's and we're spending close to twice that amount and do not have universal health care. Money is not an issue (which is what I assume you're referring to if you're using a small population to back up why we can't have universal health care) - it's how it's being spent.
This is a LARGELY diverse debate and it's being condensed down into bumper sticker slogans.
- inactive, on 01/11/2008, -8/+23So I guess you're not OK with the fire department, the police department, the road repairs & all the other ***** the government taxes the public for? Next time you get stuck in your ***** car after an accident or your house catches fire you can look after yourself, then, right, *****?
- gizzymo, on 01/11/2008, -7/+22Its the worst because the us government has brainwashed people into thinking universal heathcare is communism. As for "I don't want my tax dollars going to help fat asses who can't take care of their own health", I guess you would rather pay twice as much in the form of a premium to a company that does not give a ****. Really smart....
- niczar, on 01/11/2008, -2/+16"But you gotta wonder just how much waste would happen in the governments hands?"
Money spent by private health insurers on anything but health, such as accounting, advertising, marketing, legal dept, IT, dividends, executive jets and so on: 20 to 30% of premiums paid by insurees.
For public health insurance: 1 to 3%.
Here's why: when everyone's covered, you don't have to market the product; because EVERYONE needs health insurance. The only difference a private company could make, is that they might be more aggressive in pursuing insuree's fraud. But in the end it's not even true, as pursuing actual fraud costs more than defrauding everyone accross the board. - breadfred, on 01/11/2008, -5/+19Very flawed indeed. I slipped at a pettrol station at Tesco's on 30 december. Broke couple of teeth and a light concussion. I went to the hospital emergency and they checked me out free of charge - and I did not have to worry about any costs. The next day I was back at work again thanks to the horrible health service we have in the UK. Think again - health service pays for itself!
- SuperMoses, on 01/11/2008, -3/+17How's that going for you in the health care industry btw?
- jussipupu, on 01/11/2008, -5/+18You'll not pay more taxes for health care, but you're just fine to pay more taxes for troops and wars all over in order to police the globe.
- Hellman109, on 01/11/2008, -2/+15What BS, if the origional makers didnt make money off it, it wouldn't exist. Although US companies own allot of the patents, research grants from governments all over the world fund them aswell as the sales of the drugs. We can buy the same drugs here, and Im sure the companies get the same, as the government covers the rest of the bill.
And yeah, we do pay for it in taxes, but our tax rate isnt much different to the US, therfore the whole 'you pay for it anyhow' BS doesnt sit, we dont spend as much money on making war and corporations rich, we spend it, you know, on stuff to help the citizens of this country.
Thats because our opposition party (we have basically a 2 party system and 3-4 smaller parties) is STRONG, our citizens stand up to our government when needed, infact we just changed from a liberal party government to a labour party government in the last election even though our country is booming, this is because the liberals became complacent, and our prime minister of the last ~11 years was retiring and the opposition party had a better leader then who the liberals were going to put in.
Basically, we have a healthy political system, and citizens who stand up, which means citizens win. - mkriss5681, on 01/11/2008, -4/+18I find it hilarious that the people who claim to be the "Christian Party" are so against providing Universal Healthcare that would most benefit the people who Jesus worked his whole life to help... the poor.
- KaiUno, on 01/11/2008, -5/+17And tough luck to the folks that have a lesser income, right. The folks that didn't get all the chances you might've gotten because you were "born" into them. There's oodles of people living under the poverty line you know. That's where you're supposed to chip in, so the nation isn't overrun with the sick and the homeless. Admittedly, some are responsible for it themselves, but not all. Have a little heart, socialism works.
- inactive, on 01/11/2008, -6/+18Nice example of conservative thinking. You create a scenario and end up taking a shot at governmental interference -- and completely forget the people you started with. "Let them rot in the streets -- as long as my taxes are low. "
- Zique, on 01/11/2008, -0/+12And ironically, the countries you compare UK to have universal healthcare too.
- DangerCollie, on 01/11/2008, -3/+15"...in Canada i paid 40% income tax and a 15% sales tac for a healthcare system that was constantly shrinking and looking for ways to cut corners."
Here you pay between $400 and $600 a month in insurance premiums and get health care from a company constantly shrinking and looking for ways to cut corners in constant conflict with your insurance company which is also constantly shrinking and looking to cut what they pay your health care provider. If you're unlucky enough to get cancer, your meds can cost as much as $10,000/month because your insurance company classifies most cancer treatments as "experimental" and won't pay.
Or you can join the 47 million without health care insurance and take your chances.
Pick your poison. You're going to pay one way or another. - avatarpalin, on 01/11/2008, -2/+14It's not perfect but yes I do look at films like Sicko and think how lucky i am to think that I live in a country where we have healthcare... Sure if you earn over 50,000 a year you have to pay a 1% levy towards medicare, but if you have private health care you don't have to pay it.. Oh and $70 a year for a family means that if i or anyone in my family need an ambulance then it's here ... Noooo worries, free.
- joesmeat, on 01/11/2008, -1/+12The Australian medicare levy is 1.5% of your income. If you are a very low income earner you can actually have it waved too.
What percentage of their income does the average American spend on private health care? I'd be willing to bet that it's more than 1.5%. - Spuy767, on 01/11/2008, -4/+15This score has more to do with the way americans take care of themselves than anything else. Why don't you plot the "preventable deaths" data alongside a meaningful statistic like obesity.
- martalli, on 01/11/2008, -4/+15Your assumption that government bureacracy is more inefficient than private bureaucracy is wrong int his case. Britain has a fully universal healthcare system. They spend about 8% of their GDP on healthcare, and only 10% of that on administration. In the US we spend about 16% of our GDP on healthcare, and about a third of that money goes to administration. Who has the more inefficient bureaucracy? We are spending more than 5% of our GDP administrating our healthcare system while the British are spendnig only less than 1% of their GDP on healthcare.
Why is this? The US has a bureaucracy for Medicaid, for Medicare, for Blue Cross, for GHP, for United Healthcare, for Cigna, for Aetna, and so on down through hundreds of health insurance plans. The British only have one. Who is being more efficient? - spoonyinc, on 01/11/2008, -3/+14Then perhaps we should do away with public libraries? Or maybe go back to private firefighting where unless you pay a company the fire brigade will roll past your house while it burns to the ground. Maybe we should privatize the police force? If you think there is corruption now, it would be three fold then! There are plenty of public programs that work just fine, don't throw the whole thing out because you're annoyed at some of the aspects.
- EarlOfLade, on 01/11/2008, -4/+15Your problem has nothing to do with the article, the contents nor the conclusion within it, it has all to do with you thinking taxes are theft and that helping your fellow citizen is the worst possible thing you can do and that those lazy idiots without insurance deserve to die a painful death and that you are more worth than any one else.
Sometimes I wonder what the ***** is mentally wrong with the majority if Americans because they sure as hell is not healthy mentally. - brufleth, on 01/11/2008, -0/+11In Australia they pay significantly less per capita and GDP for their health care. Sure they pay for health care through their taxes but they still pay less than we do overall in the US.
- mattyd12466, on 01/11/2008, -2/+12question for Americans...
does youre Health care premiums go up every year...ie, does a 60+ year old pay more than a 20 year old? - Supergaxx, on 01/11/2008, -6/+161.5% isnt a substantial amount.
- brufleth, on 01/11/2008, -1/+11Dude I haven't even seen Sicko and I know that the movie was meant to show the absurdity of the US health care system. The Canadian and English systems are routinely ranked higher than the US system. That doesn't mean they're magical but it should make you question why we still pay more for our relatively poor system.
- ZenMojo, on 01/11/2008, -8/+18The fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals see a list of rights and strive to enact them. Conservatives see a list of privileges and try to preserve them. At times privileges conflict with rights, but it is the conservative position to defend their privileges fiercely while removing the rights of others while those rights that people require to decent health and well-being are removed completely in order to preserve without infringement the lowest privileges of the conservative.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 589 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is